“Stay at home” for addressingCOVID-19 protocol: learning fromthe traditional Balinese house

I Dewa Gede Agung Diasana PutraDepartment of Architecture, Faculty of Engineering, Udayana University,

Denpasar, Indonesia

Abstract

Purpose – COVID-19 caused dramatic changes in daily life, including the way people stay in a building. Sincethe virus’s outbreak and themandate of social distancing fromWHO, a house has become an essential place forpeople to avoid the propagation of the virus. However, recent house configurations cannot satisfy people’sneeds when staying at home and have not provided complete protection from viruses. Therefore, architects areexpected to create new configurations. In order to establish a new trend, this paper aimed to explore the abilityof the traditional architectural concepts that discuss the efforts to produce suitable configurations.Design/methodology/approach – To investigate to what extent the traditional Balinese concepts are stillrelevant to counter infectious diseases, architectural examinations and spatial stories were used as amethod ofinvestigations.Findings –This paper found that certain traditional knowledge elements are still relevant to produce suitableconfigurations to deal with possible virus attacks and introduce more security layers to the house.Research limitations/implications – Learning from the COVID-19 pandemic, this paper provides a view oftraditional concepts that are now still applicable to modifications and adaptations.Practical implications – In these modifications, the traditional hierarchy of entering the house and thefunction of open spaces for food production are traditional elements that address the protocol to face the virus.Social implications – Local knowledge has given good things as a precious heritage from the Balinesecommunities’ ancestors to face this new challenge.Originality/value –This pandemic has taught architects to combine modern technologies with local wisdomas an approach to develop innovative antivirus designs.

Keywords COVID-19, Architectural challenges, Traditional concepts, Stay at home, House patterns

Paper type Research paper

1. IntroductionThe COVID-19 pandemic has had significant implications and can be used to analyze thepeople’s decisions and priorities. Social distancing and quarantine have been widely used asthe first preventive mechanism (Megahed and Ghoneim, 2020) in which these actions affectother factors, including the built environment. Although COVID-19 has various potentialimpacts on built environments (Budds, 2020; Chang, 2020), this paper focuses on how localarchitectural wisdom, particularly housing, can enhance suitable spaces to deter viruses andpathogens.

Even though the current global pandemic poses risks to the built environment at all rates,the implementation and creation of an antivirus strategy to minimize the possible risk or toavoid the virus’s spread will take time. This condition is an architectural challenge for peopleto create spaces preventing viruses from spreading and producing a healthy and secureenvironment. Architectural productions are planned to discourage people from being afraidof infection (Ellin, 2002). Illnesses also influence built environmental planning and designsfrom interiors to city planning. The past outbreaks of viruses, such as tuberculosis, typhoid,polio and Spanish flu, also encouraged the transformation of design and planning (Chang,2020; Lubell, 2020). Interior designs, architectural productions, city planning andinfrastructures were transformed to reduce the risk of contagious diseases in overcrowdedpopulations.

ARCH15,1

64

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

https://www.emerald.com/insight/2631-6862.htm

Received 12 September 2020Revised 24 November 202028 November 202030 November 20202 December 2020Accepted 4 December 2020

Archnet-IJAR: InternationalJournal of Architectural ResearchVol. 15 No. 1, 2021pp. 64-78© Emerald Publishing Limited2631-6862DOI 10.1108/ARCH-09-2020-0187

Nowadays, in this pandemic, the outbreak of the virus has produced many policies,including the mandate of social distancing, quarantine and stay-at-home orders (Jacobsonet al., 2020) that will be effective in reducing the spread of the virus (Fowler et al., 2020;Lewnard and Lo, 2020). These policies have caused a house to become an essential place forpeople to avoid transmitting the virus. House and home are intertwined, but they cannot beamalgamated (Mallett, 2004, p. 63). House is generally considered to be a functional shelter(Karlsson, 2019). On the other hand, home is a cherished location and atmosphere tailored toresidents’ needs and lifestyles (Fox O’Mahony and Sweeney, 2010).

The traditional Balinese house, called umah, is more than a physical space in whichBalinese perform their domestic and sociocultural practices. For the Balinese, the traditionalhouse is a home where they can perform their activities and feel safe and comfortable.However, some Balinese, especially in urban areas, have built their house in limited areas.They do not have ceremonial spaces like in the traditional house. Many socioculturalpractices cannot be performed in the townhouse, and they should go to their ancestral housein their village to perform cultural activities. The house in the urban areas of Bali is just foraccommodating necessary activities. However, since the house can regulate its boundaries,feel safe and address the occupants’main expectations, the Balinese urban house becomes theBalinese home.

However, there is still the question concerning the configuration of a house to helpovercome virus attacks. Can the recent house also become a healthy home to protect itsoccupants from transmitting the virus? The latest outbreak of the virus is an architecturalchallenge for planners and architects to create a house that copes with the virus’s spreadingand occupants’ basic needs. How far can the traditional concepts contribute to the housedesign that can respond to the virus and infections? Therefore, this paper aims to look foranswers and learn to incorporate additional protection layers to combat potential virus-likeattacks in the house. To do this, this paper scrutinizes the urban houses in Denpasar andGianyar. The architectural investigation and Balinese’s spatial stories in the urban and thetraditional Balinese houses were used as techniques of investigation, in which architecturaldocumentation and graphical analysis were used to analyze. Using this method, this paperexplores the suitable house patterns and configurations that address the obligatory defensefrom virus outbreaks and gain additional levels in the defense system of houses.

2. Virus outbreak and architectureArchitectural productions are human settlement places that filter the outside environmentand the activities of people inside (Broadbent, 1973). Physically, architectural productionsfunction and play roles in controlling microclimate, light, noise, smell, smoke, bugs, pests,animals and radioactive (Haddad, 2010; Norberg-Schulz, 1985). These functions havetransformed the architectural elements and the new standards of human life demands, suchas sanitary and infectious diseases.

In the industrial era, the health reform movements were influenced by cholera andtyphoid. These pandemics also contributed to the development of water and sanitationsystems for pathogens, eventually leading to sanitary innovations and making them moreaffordable, slower and wider for streets to create underground drainage networks. Moreover,the plague in 1855 affectedmany aspects of built environment design and planning, includingpipe systems, doorway configurations and foundations (Klaus, 2020; Wainwright, 2020).Planners and architects tried to create and build curative spaces cleansed of illness andpollution. These creations reflected modernist ideas about the therapeutic benefits of the sun,air and nature, besides their aesthetic appeal. The creations featured large walls, balconies,dust-free flats surfaces and white paint, which stressed cleanliness (Budds, 2020; Chang,

Learning fromthe traditionalBalinese house

65

2020). Planners and architects had to develop new health models to increase safety levels toprevent disease and infection spread (Megahed and Ghoneim, 2020).

Nowadays, several countries have declared a health alert to address the outbreak of severeacute respiratory coronavirus syndrome (SARS-CoV-2) caused by the coronavirus disease.The pandemic has resulted in a substantial rise in the study’s response to the disease (WorldHealth Organization, 2020). The World Health Organization (WHO) has announced that thespread of this virus has been an international crisis (Adhikari et al., 2020; Lai et al., 2020; Zhouet al., 2020), including in Indonesia (Setiati and Azwar, 2020). At the early stages of thepandemic, physical distancing and minimizing contacts between people in a population havebeen essential ways of avoiding orminimizing the disease transmission (Hatchett et al., 2007).While researchers work to produce vaccinations, authorities impose physical distancing,including advising stay at home, restricting people’s movement and shutting downnonessential businesses (Bick et al., 2020; Fong et al., 2020; Gostin and Wiley, 2020). Thispandemic might radically alter the way people carry out people’s lives to deal with virus’sspread (Honey-Roses et al., 2020). Architects, designers and built environment professionalsare willing to explore a variety of social and environmental implications for the developmentof new patterns of spaces (Paital, 2020; Salama, 2020). The development of architecture andurban environments in the case of pandemics entails not only the quarantine in all forms ofbuildings and urban settings on the basis of urgent and precautionary steps but also designproblems and planning issues.

Although the standards and protocols for enforcement vary considerably, policymakershave required or recommended that most people stay at home, with minimal exceptions, toaddress basic needs, including grocery and medication. Modeling experiments for COVID-19indicate that extensive physical distances may help preserve the health system (Walker et al.,2020). The pandemic has contributed to a stronger sense of respect for houses. The housescan efficiently accommodate social distancing and address the safety system from spreadingviruses (Megahed and Ghoneim, 2020). Therefore, the upcoming houses’ configurations havethe potential to alter (Dejtiar, 2020; Priday, 2020) because the household members havegreater possibilities to carry the virus home (Saadat et al., 2020). In a design process, thiscondition can take steps to get satisfactory solutions for avoiding infection. The mandate towork from home becomes more challenging for people living in tiny and crowded houses(Saadat et al., 2020). The mandate is necessary to respond to the coronavirus; therefore, thehouse’s pattern and configuration become essential in people’s daily life (Schellenberg andFonberg, 2020).

The spread of coronavirus has led people to reconfigure their houses, especially tiny andcrowded houses, by allocating spaces for gardens and producing food, by providing spacesfor social distancing and by installing house components for lighting and air circulation. Inthis term, staying at home is an excellent time to realize that a garden is essential in houses,even multistory houses (Makhno, 2020; Wainwright, 2020). With regard to configuration andplanning solutions, the postpandemic architecture of houses should have more spacepartitions and avoid open-plan configurations. Houses may have wide passageways,entryways and more stairways to adjust building codes and design policies. Providingflexible and adaptable rooms for all users, houses can become more durable and adaptable toalter demands and lifestyles (Capolongo et al., 2020; Wainwright, 2020).

3. The traditional Balinese house (Umah) as a Balinese homeSocial distancing is a way of increasing distance between individuals to minimize the risk ofdisease transmission. Social isolation reduces the distribution of COVID-19 in which peopleare ordered to work online, avoid public transit and remain at home if they feel that they havebeen compromised and symptomatic (Sen-Crowe et al., 2020). The terms of the house and

ARCH15,1

66

home are disputed in the academic works (Blunt and Dowling, 2006). A house represents thedistinction between private and public spheres and between the house’s physical andrelational aspects (Handel, 2019). Beyond the physical configuration of the house, the home isviewed as a sociospatial body (Saunders and Williams, 1988), a psychospatial function(Giuliani, 1991), a storeroom of feelings (Gurney, 2000) and a dwelling (Easthope, 2004). Homeis linked to the notion of identity and security (Porteous, 1976). It is a site of routines thatcreates and maintains self-esteem and long-term social structures (Giddens, 1991).

Although some researchers assume a house as the physical entity of shelter, it is morethan just a place where people live; it is also a place for social activities and rituals. Thehouse’s configuration reflects the fundamental cultural principles and standards (Clark, 1973;Lawrence, 1987; Oliver, 2006; Ozaki, 2002; Rapoport, 1969, 1985). Therefore, the house is apart of the home in its construction form (Dovey, 1985). Home, which is both physical andsocial aspects (Saunders and Williams, 1988), can be defined as a cherished spaceand atmosphere personalized to the demands and lifestyle of a person (Fox O’Mahony andSweeney, 2010). Home is linked to the feeling that correlates to residents’ desires regardingthe ideal dwelling spaces (Clapham, 2005; Coolen et al., 2002; Coolen and Meesters, 2012; FoxO’Mahony and Sweeney, 2010; Gram-Hanssen and Bech-Danielsen, 2004). This desire isinterrelated to the inhabitants’ expectations with idealized imagination and definition of ahome (Blunt and Dowling, 2006), in which they can freely and independently use the spaces(Benjamin, 1995; Douglas, 1991; Mifflin and Wilton, 2005; Veness, 1993; Vitus, 2010;White, 2012).

A house provides a physical space for families and can be used as an environment or aplace for some social activities called home life (Clapham, 2005). A house has features thataffect occupants’ health, well-being and lifestyle. Houses are also homes where the word“home” can be interpreted as a living mechanism or a dwelling process (Saegert, 1985; Whiteand White, 2007), which involves a variety of connections including relationships inphysiology, physical, society, affectivity and behavior (Coolen et al., 2002; Rapoport, 1995).

This description refers to the traditional Balinese house called umah in which the house isone of the Balinese traditions’ manifestations. It reflects collective historical practices andcommunal cultural codes. It can be perceived as away of creating distinctiveness and identity(Japha and Japha, 1991; Hall, 1990; Proshansky et al., 1983). Identity expresses thecommonality of tradition and culture among society members and differences or distinctionsbetween nonmembers (Brubaker and Cooper, 2000). The house and traditions are handeddown from generation to generation. Therefore, people inherit a dual heritage. This culturalhanding down involves the house and the sociocultural activities as traditions and leads to asocial–architectural understanding of buildings.

The house is arranged within the outline of ceremonial processions and sites (Hobart,1978), in which the spatial uses demonstrate the spiritual signs of processions. These spiritualsigns present that many ceremonial sites are interconnected and represented differentsacredness stages (Hobart, 1978; Tan, 1967). In the ceremonial activities, ritual spaces are likestages that perform religious performances for God and the ancestors of occupants and themembers of a paternal kinship family, guests and village members.

The rituals are performed in the house and utilize many spaces and pavilions. Ceremonialprocessions can use different spaces of the house. The courtyard, called natah and the easternpavilion, called bale dangin, are the main places for performing the manusa yadnya,ceremonies related to the human’s life cycle from birth to rebirth. The family temple is a placefor ceremonies, especially those related to respect to God and ancestors, while the backyardcalled teba and other pavilions are the places for preparation and guests. The house, asdepicted in Figure 1, consists of a family temple (①), a bale daja (⑤), a bale dauh (④), a baledangin (⑥), a jineng (⑦), a paon (③) and courtyard called natah (②) (Figure 1). In front of thehouse are a traditional gate (⑧) called angkul-angkul and a small garden in front of the house

Learning fromthe traditionalBalinese house

67

called telajakan (⑨). The backyard (teba) (⑩) is like a small forest where people plantvegetation, raise animals and dump rubbish (Putra et al., 2019). Many plants and animalssuch as underbrush, birds and insects growwildly inmany parts of the backyard to seem likean unorganized space.

The pavilions and open spaces in a house have multifunctional purposes in which theyhave spiritual and secular purposes. Spiritual purposes are related to many ceremonialpractices. On the other hand, secular purposes are represented by the domestic practicesassociated with the occupants’ basic demands (Wikstrom, 1995). The domestic domain in thetraditional Balinese house consists of the compound set, consisting of pavilions and acourtyard, and a teba as a backyard. Within the domestic practices, the occupants performtheir daily works in many spaces of the house. Women move and use many spaces for theiractivities, such as the kitchen, the granary for pounding and husking unhulled rice, thepigsty, the backyard for takingmanymaterials for cooking and the rice field for helpingmen.After finishing their main tasks, they chat with other women and watch their kids playing inthe courtyard.

On the other hand, men use house spaces to support women’s daily activities, such ascollecting foodmaterials in the backyard, taking unhulled rice from the granary and drying itin the natah. After that, they go to the rice field. If men have spare time, they chat and docockfighting at the front of the house. In some villages, men alsomake paintings and carvingsin the pavilions. The practices have become a particular layer of domestic spaces that create aclassification and the bounding of domestic spaces by repeating the occupants’ activities(Lozanovska, 2002). The spaces have a meaning if there is a collaboration among the spaces,occupants and activities. The spaces are abstract and without meaning if there are noactivities in the spaces.

The house communicates its purposes symbolically (Dwijendra and Suyoga, 2020) andreflects an interaction among people to maintain a harmonious relationship with God, otherhuman beings and the environment based on the tri hita karana philosophy (Dwijendra,2020). This philosophy is applied in many rituals in the house. Through rituals and spatialpractices, occupantsmergewith the spaces and become part of the house. The ritual positionsand movements possess a complex significance, which varies based on the changes of thehuman life cycle from birth to death, and then the soul of the dead people undergoes the

Figure 1.The pattern of thetraditional Balinesehouse (umah)

ARCH15,1

68

process of rebirth (Hobart, 1978). All stages of human life are marked by implementingparticular ceremonies accommodated in the house’s spaces. The rituals are the determinantfactors to produce a house’s physical architectural meaning (Graves, 1983).

4. Learning from Umah: compromising COVID-19The mandate to “stay at home” to respond to the COVID-19 causes a house, as a place wherepeople live, become a place for people’s activities for all of the day. Extended periods in theirhouses make the house’s features essential (Schellenberg and Fonberg, 2020). This crucialrole of the house requires an ideal and conducive house atmosphere and conditions to carryout all existing activities. The house should be healthy, clean, comfortable and safe to respondto viruses around the occupants. The application of ideal design principles is required tosatisfy minimum requirements for the amount of spaces that can be responsive to COVID-19,including the area for washing hands in the house’s front yard before guests or occupantsenter the house (Imran and As’adiyah, 2020). This space is designed to respond to the routineof entering the housewhere the occupants canwash their hands or take a bath before enteringthe other rooms and meeting the other occupants (Meihartati, 2020).

The requirement to have a washing area in the front yard means that washing areas, suchas kitchens, baths and toilets, are typically situated in the back of the building. Nowadays,especially in urban housing, including Bali, the house is not designed to comply with theCOVID-19 protocol. In the recent pattern, occupants enter the house through a veranda and aguest room or a living room, end then after that, they can reach a toilet, a bathroom or akitchen. Sometimes, they get to the bathroom after entering the bedroom. In this procession,family members that are more likely to return home with the virus (Saadat et al., 2020) haveopportunities to infect other family members. The house’s recent pattern and the pandemichave raised public awareness about the insecurity of their house and introduced a strongersense of appreciation to the new configuration. People need houses that can offer successfulsocial isolation and protect occupants from viruses and infections (Megahed and Ghoneim,2020), including washing hands before entering the house. In order to prevent infections,special attention is required in design solutions. Consequently, the house pattern should bereconfigured or redesigned to address new demands for virus prevention. These newdemands could change the trend of a house design (Dejtiar, 2020; Priday, 2020) in which thenew design required special consideration in design solutions to prevent infection.

Based on the procession to enter the house, the newmodel of the process is identical to thehierarchy of entering the traditional Balinese house. In Balinese traditions, the people enterthe house from an angkul-angkul (⑧), a granary (⑦), a paon (③), a shrine in the natah (②),pavilions (the bale dauh ④, the bale daja ⑤, the bale dangin ⑥) and finally onto the familytemple (①) (Figure 2). As indicated by red arrows in Figure 2, the ideal process for enteringthe house presents a hierarchy from profane areas into sacred areas (Ferschin andGramelhofer, 2004) that also presents the cleaning process before entering the core ofthe house.

In this process, the kitchen is a significant pavilion. The kitchen is a place where theactivities rarely stop during the day. In this place, the daily life of the Balinese begins whenthe mother lights the first fire for the day’s cooking and prepares food for animals in theafternoon (Covarrubias, 1974). In the kitchen and its surroundings, women perform theiractivities to prepare food and spend their leisure time, such as weaving fabric and chattingwith other women.

In the case of the COVID-19 pandemic, the kitchen has an essential meaning in cleaningand purifying. Based on Balinese belief, the kitchen is a place for spiritual purification, as canbe seen from a simple ritual following funeral activities in other houses. In this ritual,occupants take water, throw it onto the roof and then use the water running down from the

Learning fromthe traditionalBalinese house

69

roof for washing their face, hair and hands. After completing this rite, the Balinese believethat they are free from negative spirits and are ready to enter the house. The kitchen’slocation has a symbolic meaning that people should be spiritually and physically clean beforeentering other parts of the house.

Cleaning hands and a face in the kitchen, the first occupied buildings in the traditionalhouse, can be used as a house circulation pattern concerning the protocol COVID-19. Theoccupants canwash their hands in the kitchen before entering other spaces in the house. Thishierarchy of entering the house is not common in urban housing in Bali. Most of the housessurveyed in 2019 and 2020 in Bali, especially in Denpasar and Gianyar, have a kitchen andbathroom or toilet at the back of the house (Figure 3a). The dashed lines in Figure 3a presentthe directions inwhich occupants access a variety of rooms to access the kitchen or bathroom.In the case of COVID-19 protocol, this pattern gives opportunities for virus to spread to otherrooms or family members before they wash their hands or take a bath.

In this case, the hierarchy of entering the traditional Balinese house becomes a reference toredesign the urban house’s pattern. The kitchen, usually at the back, can be located at thefront or accessed directly from outside. This reconfiguration can allow the occupants to clean

Figure 2.Process of enteringa house

Figure 3.The example ofcommon pattern andthe pattern’s proposalof urban houses in Bali

ARCH15,1

70

and wash their hands and face before entering the other rooms to minimize the chance ofspreading the virus to other family members (Figure 3b). For the Balinese, this pattern notonly prevents the occupants from the spreading of the virus but also addresses the Balinesebelief. This pandemic is the best time for Balinese to relearn and reapply their local wisdom, inwhich they must perform physical and spiritual purification before entering many spaces intheir house. This configuration presents that the traditional Balinese house concept hasalready been designed to face any challenges from time to time.

The traditional house is also an independent and complete house where the house’s spacesgive opportunities for the occupants to comply with their daily needs. The house has agranary to store unhulled rice that can be husked and pounded in the house for the occupants’food (Covarrubias, 1974; Putra et al., 2017, 2019). The house also has a backyard that providesmany food materials such as coconut, banana, savanna and vegetables. People also raiseanimals such as pigs, chickens, roosters and ducks that can be used as material for food andofferings. Occupants can take rice from the granary, pick vegetables and slaughter chickensor ducks raised in the backyard and cook them to feed their family. Without leaving thehouse, the occupants can satisfy their everyday needs in the house.

This traditional house’s pattern is related to the recent phenomenon concerning foodproduction in a house. The pattern can be applied, in such away, in an urban housewith sometransformation and reconfiguration. This household food production has raised interestamong urban planners and development specialists (Vasey, 1981, 1982). While attempts aremade to encourage urban food production, policymakers should recognize that urban foodproductions still exist in backyard gardens in several Third World countries (Vasey, 1985),including Bali, Indonesia.

In Bali, agriculture was the main livelihood and resource for people’s social practices(Covarrubias, 1974; Geertz, 1980; Goris, 1960). This sector was the primary household incomefor the family’s needs and resources for performing rituals. In the traditional house, manyspaces are allocated to accommodate agricultural activities. Thus, in the house, the Balinesecan perform many activities to maintain a harmonious relationship with God, other humanbeings and the environment and get food materials. In the traditional house, rituals andeveryday practices are mutually implicated. The Balinese conserve the environment tosupport their rituals, at the same time, they conduct these rituals so that God will providethem with good agricultural productions. The house becomes the right place for producingfood materials. This house function can be useful when most families in the world, includingBali, are still engaging in social isolation at home. This condition is expected to endureshortly. Owing to the severe contagiousness of COVID-19, excessive outdoor exercise ishighly discouraged (Sofo and Sofo, 2020).

In a matter of days, this disorder-induced people feel upside down and are compelled toalter their old habits (Sofo and Sofo, 2020). Despite these obstacles, people have to minimizethis cumulative mental tension and psychological stress and then try to create andindependently produce food by planting vegetation in the house’s limited spaces even thoughthey are not living in a rural environment. Vegetation is the cornerstone of many ecologicalresources, and a vegetation-rich environment will guarantee our physical and mental well-being (Bratman et al., 2012, 2015; Russell et al., 2013; Shwartz et al., 2014).

Traditionally, the traditional house environment’s representation was a backyard, a smallforest without a pavilion where people planted vegetation and raised animals. It was thebiodiversity that supplied materials for rituals and domestic needs. The preservation ofbiodiversity in the house was also a traditional practice to maintain a natural life cycle. In thisprocess, household garbage and animal waste decayed to produce compost. This compostthen fertilized the land and vegetation. Vegetation in the house provided living organismsspaces, such as wild birds and insects that produced many natural sounds. This conditiongave the impression of close contact with nature and generated a feeling of harmony between

Learning fromthe traditionalBalinese house

71

the people and their environment (Vickers, 2013). A backyard (teba) was an inseparable partof the traditional house where it was the house’s legs (Covarrubias, 1974), providing manymaterials for offerings and daily food. This part was a small forest in the house that can be agarden that provides many materials for food or offerings.

The built environmental condition may affect human activities (McIntyre and Harrison,2017). The house garden model will provide leisure time, enhance physical and mental well-being and provide economic benefits and environmental advantages (Dunnett and Qasim,2000; Hartig et al., 2014; Jennings and Gaither, 2015). Irrespective of the realistic challengesand existential difficulties encountered, there is a new opportunity for people toencouragement environmental goals, communities’ awareness and the demand during astay at home. Land limitation, especially in urban areas, has caused the Balinese to build ahouse just for their basic needs, including sleeping and cooking, where the house has noenough spaces for planting vegetation or raising animals. Houses in urban areas have alreadybeen dependent on markets to satisfy their needs for food materials. It is time to focus on anew way of life that begins with daily activities and our local wisdom.

Themoment of “social isolation” at home is a good time for the Balinese to relearn from theBalinese house. The house with many spaces for planting vegetation and raising animals canbe applied in an urban house using small spaces in the house or using the rooftop as a spacefor food production. The open spaces of the urban house are a garden and a lumbung hidup;the spaces that are like granaries storing the living food ingredients, including vegetables,coconut and papayas. The problem of making lumbung hidup in an urban house is the lack ofspaces for plant cultivation. This limitation is a challenge for the development of sustainablehousehold landscapes in cities. The concept of yard development with vertical planting onwalls or fences, using plant containers and vines with a pergola can be accomplished throughcreative space utilization and simple construction techniques to implement the conceptproperly (Irwan and Sarwadi, 2015). Therefore, the Balinese concept implementation can stillbe applied in land limitation with some adjustments to address the COVID-19 protocol.

5. ConclusionsCOVID-19 has brought fundamental changes to daily lives, in which architecturaldevelopments, including houses, have faced a challenge to protect the occupants fromtreating infectious diseases. The instruction to “stay at home” to respond to COVID-19 causesa house to become a place for people to do their activities all day. This crucial functionrequires the house to become a safe, clean, comfortable and healthy place to respond toviruses. The optimal architecture concept must follow the minimum criteria for rooms andspaces that should meet the COVID-19, including the area where visitors or residents enterthe house to wash hands in the front yards.

The procession needed to enter the house on the basis of the COVID-19 protocol is similarto the pattern of entering the traditional Balinese house. The Balinese house concept alsoprovides spaces for food production called lumbung hidup that give the occupantsopportunities to stay at home without worrying about daily food supply. However, since thelimitation of space in the recent house, especially in urban areas of Bali, some adjustments areessential. In this adjustment, the kitchen is located at the front part or can be directly accessedfrom outside. In addition, the open spaces and any components of the building, such as walls,fences and rooftops, can be used as a medium for planting vegetation for food production.Therefore, the Balinese concept implementation can still be applied in land limitation withsome adjustments to address the COVID-19 protocol.

This pandemic has made Balinese people aware of their local wisdom in which they mustperform physical and spiritual purification before entering their house. The local wisdom in acommunity created on the basis of long experiences has given good things as a precious

ARCH15,1

72

inheritance from the ancestors. The application of the Balinese house concept is still relevantin the case of COVID-19 protocol. This virus pandemic has already improved ourunderstanding of local knowledge, and this pandemic can be a catalyst for a whole new andpotentially better world. COVID-19 is a message that gives us time to revisit human natureand talk about the traditional architecture framework and encourage architects anddesigners to think about how all this can be turned into a sustainable system.

Based on the lessons learned from this crisis, this study introduces a vision about learningfrom traditional concepts that are still relevant to some adaptations. The traditional conceptcan still be used in the new urban house to prevent or minimize the virus’s spread. However,the best approach to handling the virus is based on several considerations, such as populationand environmental capacities. The global pandemic has demonstrated the shortcomings ofhow people handle their house configuration and how architects and designers plan, createandmaintain an urban environment. Learning from traditional concepts and new knowledge,information and technologies, the pandemic has taught architects and designers to developinnovative antivirus designs.

References

Adhikari, S.P., Meng, S., Wu, Y., Mao, Y., Ye, R., Wang, Q., Sun, C., Sylvia, S., Rozelle, S., Raat, H. andZhou, H. (2020), “A scoping review of 2019 novel coronavirus during the early outbreak period:epidemiology, causes, clinical manifestation and diagnosis, prevention and control”, InfectiousDiseases of Poverty, Vol. 9 No. 29, pp. 1-12, doi: 10.21203/rs.2.24474/v1.

Benjamin, D.N. (1995), “Afterword, or further research issues in confronting the home concept”, inBenjamin, D.N., Stea, D. and Saile, D. (Eds), The Home: Words, Interpretations, Meanings, andEnvironments, Ashagte, Aldershot, pp. 293-307.

Bick, A., Blandin, A. and Mertens, K. (2020), “Work from home after the COVID-19 outbreak”,Working Papers, 2020 (2017), Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas. doi: 10.24149/wp2017r1.

Blunt, A. and Dowling, R.M. (2006), Home, Routledge, London.

Bratman, G.N., Hamilton, J.P. and Daily, G.C. (2012), “The impacts of nature experience on humancognitive function and mental health”, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, Vol. 1249No. 1, pp. 118-136, doi: 10.1111/j.1749-6632.2011.06400.x.

Bratman, G.N., Daily, G.C., Levy, B.J. and Gross, J.J. (2015), “The benefits of nature experience:improved affect and cognition”, Landscape and Urban Planning, Vol. 138, pp. 41-50, doi: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2015.02.005.

Broadbent, G. (1973), Design in Architecture: Architecture and the Human Sciences, John Wiley & Sons,New York.

Brubaker, R. and Cooper, F. (2000), “Beyond identity”, Theory and Society, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 1-47.

Budds, D. (2020), “Design in the age of pandemics: throughout history, how we design and inhabitphysical space has been a primary defense against epidemics”, available at: https://www.curbed.com/2020/3/17/21178962/design-pandemics-coronavirus-quarantine.

Capolongo, S., Rebecchi, A., Buffoli, M., Appolloni, L., Signorelli, C., Fara, G.M. and D’Alessandro, D.(2020), “COVID-19 and cities: from urban health strategies to the pandemic challenge. adecalogue of public health opportunities”, Acta Biomedica, Vol. 91 No. 2, pp. 13-22, doi: 10.23750/abm.v91i2.9515.

Chang, V. (2020), The Post-Pandemic Style: After Deadly Outbreaks, Architects Transform the PlacesWe Live and Work. This Time Won’t Be Different, available at: https://slate.com/business/2020/04/coronavirus-architecture-1918-flu-cholera-modernism.html.

Clapham, D. (2005), The Meaning of Housing: A Pathways Approach, Policy Press.

Clark, E. (1973), “Order in the Atoni house”, in Needham, R. (Ed.), Right and Left: Essays in DualSymbolic Classification, The University of Chicago Press, London.

Learning fromthe traditionalBalinese house

73

Coolen, H. and Meesters, J. (2012), “Editorial special issue: house, home and dwelling”, Journal ofHousing and the Built Environment, Vol. 27, pp. 1-10, doi: 10.1007/s10901-011-9247-4.

Coolen, H., Kempen, E. and Ozaki, R. (2002), “Experiences and meanings of dwellings”, Housing,Theory and Society, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 114-116.

Covarrubias, M. (1974), Island of Bali, Oxford University Press, Kuala Lumpur.

Dejtiar, F. (2020), Is Coronavirus Pandemic Accelerating the Digitalization and Automation of Cities?,ArchDaily, available at: https://www.archdaily.com/936064/is-coronavirus-pandemicaccelerating-%0Athe-digitalization-and-automation-of-cities.

Douglas, M. (1991), “The idea of a home: a kind of space”, Social Research, Vol. 58 No. 1,pp. 287-307.

Dovey, K. (1985), “Home and homelessness”, in Altman, I. and Werner, C.M. (Eds), HomeEnvironments, Plenum Press, New York, pp. 33-64.

Dunnett, N. and Qasim, M. (2000), “Perceived benefits to human well-being of urban gardens”,HortTechnology, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 40-45, doi: 10.21273/horttech.10.1.40.

Dwijendra, N.K.A. (2020), “From tradition to modernization in morphological process of indigenoussettlement patterns in Bali, Indonesia”, International Journal of Advanced Science andTechnology, Vol. 29 No. 8, pp. 856-868.

Dwijendra, N.K.A. and Suyoga, I.P.G. (2020), “Analysis of symbolic violence practices in Balinesevernacular architecture: a case study in Bali, Indonesia”, International Journal of Innovation,Creativity and Change, Vol. 13 No. 5, pp. 184-194.

Easthope, H. (2004), “A place called home”, Housing, Theory and Society, Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 128-138.

Ellin, N. (2002), Postmodern Urbanism, Princeton Architectural Press, New York.

Ferschin, P. and Gramelhofer, A. (2004), “Architecture as information space”, Proceedings of theInternational Conference on Information Visualization, Vol. 8, pp. 181-186, doi: 10.1109/iv.2004.1320142.

Fong, M.W., Gao, H., Wong, J.Y., Xiao, J., Shiu, E.Y.C., Ryu, S. and Cowling, B.J. (2020),“Nonpharmaceutical measures for pandemic influenza in nonhealthcare settings-socialdistancing measures”, Emerging Infectious Diseases, Vol. 26 No. 5, pp. 976-984, doi: 10.3201/eid2605.190995.

Fowler, J.H., Hill, S.J., Levin, R. and Obradovich, N. (2020), “The effect of stay-at-home orders onCOVID-19 infections in the United States”, ArXiv Preprint ArXiv:2004.06098.

Fox O’Mahony, L. and Sweeney, J.A. (2010), “The exclusion of (failed) asylum seekers from housingand home: towards an oppositional discourse”, Journal of Law and Society, Vol. 37 No. 2,pp. 285-314, doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6478.2010.00505.x.

Geertz, C. (1980), Negara, Princeton University Press, New Jersey.

Giddens, A. (1991), Modernity and Self-Identity: Self and Society in the Late Modern Age, StanfordUniversity Press, California.

Giuliani, M.V. (1991), “Towards an analysis of mental representations of attachment to the home”, TheJournal of Architectural and Planning Research, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 133-146, doi: 10.1016/S0272-4944(05)80179-3.

Goris, R. (1960), The Religious Character of the Village Community. Bali: Studies in Life, Thought andRitual, Foris Publications, Dordrecht.

Gostin, L.O. and Wiley, L.F. (2020), “Governmental public health powers during the COVID-19pandemic: stay-at-home orders, business closures, and travel restrictions”, Journal of theAmerican Medical Association, Vol. 323 No. 21, pp. 2137-2138, doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.5460.

Gram-Hanssen, K. and Bech-Danielsen, C. (2004), “House, home and identity from a consumptionperspective”, Housing, Theory and Society, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 17-26, doi: 10.1080/14036090410025816.

ARCH15,1

74

Graves, M. (1983), “Ritual themes in architecture”, The Princeton Journal, Thematic Studies inArchitecture, Ritual, Vol. 1, pp. 51-56.

Gurney, C. (2000), “I _ home: towards a more affective understanding of home”, Proceedings of Cultureand Space in Built Environments: Critical Directions/New Paradigms, pp. 33-39.

Haddad, E. (2010), “Christian Norberg-Schulz’s phenomenological project in architecture”,Architectural Theory Review, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 88-101, doi: 10.1080/13264821003629279.

Hall, S. (1990), “Cultural identity and diaspora”, in Rutherford, J. (Ed.), Identity, Community, CultureDifference, Lawrence and Wishart, London, pp. 222-237.

Handel, A. (2019), “What’s in a home? Toward a critical theory of housing/dwelling”, Environment andPlanning C: Politics and Space, Vol. 37 No. 6, pp. 1045-1062, doi: 10.1177/2399654418819104.

Hartig, T., Mitchell, R., De Vries, S. and Frumkin, H. (2014), “Nature and health”, Annual Review ofPublic Health, Vol. 35, pp. 207-228, doi: 10.1146/annurev-publhealth-032013-182443.

Hatchett, R.J., Mecher, C.E. and Lipsitch, M. (2007), “Public health interventions and epidemic intensityduring the 1918 influenza pandemic”, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of theUnited States of America, Vol. 104 No. 18, pp. 7582-7587, doi: 10.1073/pnas.0610941104.

Hobart, M. (1978), “The path of the soul: the legitimacy of nature in Balinese conceptions of space”,Natural Symbols in South East Asia, pp. 5-28.

Honey-Roses, J., Anguelovski, I., Bohigas, J., Chireh, V., Daher, C., Konijnendijk, C., Litt, J., Mawani, V.,McCall, M., Orellana, A., Oscilowicz, E., S�anchez, U., Senbel, M., Tan, X., Villagomez, E.,Zapata, O. and Nieuwenhuijsen, M. (2020), The Impact of COVID-19 on Public Space: A Reviewof the Emerging Questions, Lawrence and Wishart, London, pp. 1-20, doi: 10.31219/osf.io/rf7xa.

Imran, M. and As’adiyah, R.B. (2020), “Desain Rumah Tinggal Yang Sehat Dan Responsif Terhadapcovid-19”, Prosiding Seminar Nasional Hardiknas, Vol. 1, pp. 5-16.

Irwan, S.N.R. and Sarwadi, A. (2015), “Lanskap pekarangan produktif di Permukiman perkotaandalam Mewujudkan Lingkungan Binaan Berkelanjutan”, Seminar Nasional Sains DanTeknologi, 2015, November, pp. 1-11.

Japha, D. and Japha, V. (1991), “Identity through detail: an architecture and cultural aspiration inMontagu, South Africa, 1850-1915”, TDSR, Vol. 2, pp. 17-33.

Jacobson, N.C., Lekkas, D., Price, G., Heinz, M.V., Song, M., O’Malley, A.J. and Barr, P.J. (2020),“Flattening the mental health curve: COVID-19 stay-at-home orders are associated withAlterations in mental health search behavior in the United States”, JMIR Mental Health, Vol. 7No. 6, e19347, doi: 10.2196/19347.

Jennings, V. and Gaither, C.J. (2015), “Approaching environmental health disparities and green spaces:an ecosystem services perspective”, International Journal of Environmental Research and PublicHealth, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 1952-1968, doi: 10.3390/ijerph120201952.

Karlsson, S. (2019), “‘You said “home” but we don’t have a house’–children’s lived rights and politicsin an asylum centre in Sweden”, Children’s Geographies, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 64-75, doi: 10.1080/14733285.2018.1474173.

Klaus, I. (2020), The Post-Pandemic Urban Future Is Already Here, available at: https://www.citylab.com/design/2020/04/coronavirus-urban-planning-cities-architecture-history/609262/ (accessed12 September 2020).

Lai, C.-C., Shih, T.-P., Ko, W.-C., Tang, H.-J. and Hsueh, P.-R. (2020), “Severe acute respiratorysyndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and corona virus disease-2019 (COVID-19): the epidemicand the challenges”, International Journal of Antimicrobial Agents, Vol. 5, 105924, pp. 1-9.

Lawrence, R.J. (1987), Housing, Dwellings and Homes: Design Theory, Research and Practice, JohnWiley & Sons, Chichester.

Lewnard, J.A. and Lo, N.C. (2020), “Scientific and ethical basis for social-distancing interventionsagainst COVID-19”, The Lancet Infectious Diseases, Vol. 20 No. 6, p. 631.

Learning fromthe traditionalBalinese house

75

Lozanovska, M. (2002), “Architectural frontier/spatial story: the problematic of representing theeveryday”, Space and Culture, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 140-151.

Lubell, S. (2020), “Commentary: past pandemics changed the design of cities. Six ways covid-19 coulddo the same”, Los Angeles Times, 22 April.

Makhno, S. (2020), “Life after coronavirus: how will the pandemic affect our homes”, Dezeen, availableat: Https://Www. Dezeen. Com/2020/03/25/Life-after-Coronavirus-Impact-Homes-Designarchitecture/ (accessed 10 August 2020).

Mallett, S. (2004), “Understanding home: a critical review of the literature”, The Sociological Review,Vol. 52 No. 1, pp. 62-89.

McIntyre, L.J. and Harrison, I.R. (2017), “The effects of built environment design on opportunities forwellbeing in care homes”, Archnet-IJAR, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 138-156, doi: 10.26687/archnet-ijar.v11i1.1206.

Megahed, N.A. and Ghoneim, E.M. (2020), “Antivirus-built environment: lessons learned from Covid-19 pandemic”, Sustainable Cities and Society, Vol. 61, p. 102350, doi: 10.1016/j.scs.2020.102350.

Meihartati, T. (2020), “Pentingnya Protokol Kesehatan Keluar Masuk Rumah Saat Pandemi Covid-19Dilingkungan Masyarakat RT 30 Kelurahan Air Hitam, Samarinda, Kalimantan Timur”,Pengabdian Masyarakat, Vol. 1 No. 2.

Mifflin, E. and Wilton, R. (2005), “No place like home: rooming houses in contemporary urbancontext”, Environment and Planning A, Vol. 37 No. 3, pp. 403-421.

Norberg-Schulz, C. (1985), The Concept of Dwelling on the Way to Figurative Architecture, Rizzoli,New York.

Oliver, P. (2006), Built to Meet Needs: Cultural Issues in Vernacular Architecture, Architectural Press,London.

Ozaki, R. (2002), “Housing as a reflection of culture: privatised living and privacy in England andJapan”, Housing Studies, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 209-227, doi: 10.1080/02673030220123199.

Paital, B. (2020), “Nurture to nature via COVID-19, a self-regenerating environmental strategy ofenvironment in global context”, The Science of the Total Environment, Vol. 729, p. 139088,doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.139088.

Porteous, J.D. (1976), “Home: the territorial core”, Geographical Review, Vol. 66 No. 4, p. 383, doi: 10.2307/213649.

Priday, C. (2020), “Architecture after coronavirus”, Exepose, available at: https://exepose.com/2020/ 05/05/architecture-after-coronavirus/.

Proshansky, H.M., Fabian, A.K. and Kaminoff, R. (1983), “Place-identity: physical world socializationof the self”, Journal of Environmental Psychology, Vol. 3, pp. 57-83.

Putra, I.D.G.A.D., Lozanovska, M. and Fuller, R.J. (2017), “A methodology to evaluate thetransformation of traditional Balinese houses as a consequence of Tourism”, Archnet-IJAR,Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 83-100.

Putra, I.D.G.A.D., Lozanovska, M. and Fuller, R. (2019), “From spiritualistic toward more pragmaticpattern: re-ordering Balinese houses and viability of the household traditions in tourismeconomy”, Journal of Architecture and Urbanism, Vol. 43 No. 1, doi: 10.3846/jau.2019.3692.

Rapoport, A. (1969), “House form and culture”, in Foundations of Cultural Geography Series, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs.

Rapoport, A. (1985), “Thinking about home environments”, in Altman, I. and Werner, C.M. (Eds),Home Environments, Springer, Plenum Press, New York, pp. 255-286.

Rapoport, A. (1995), “A critical look at the concept “home”, The Home: Words, Interpretations,Meanings, and Environments, Avebury Publishing, Aldershot, pp. 25-52.

Russell, R., Guerry, A.D., Balvanera, P., Gould, R.K., Basurto, X., Chan, K.M.A., Klain, S., Levine, J. andTam, J. (2013), “Humans and nature: how knowing and experiencing nature affect well-being”,

ARCH15,1

76

Annual Review of Environment and Resources, Vol. 38, doi: 10.1146/annurev-environ-012312-110838.

Saadat, S., Rawtani, D. and Hussain, C.M. (2020), “Environmental perspective of COVID-19”, Science ofthe Total Environment, Vol. 728, p. 138870, doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.138870.

Saegert, S. (1985), “The role of housing in the experience of dwelling”, in Altman, I. and Werner, C.M.(Eds), Home Environments, Springer, Plenum Press, New York, pp. 287-309.

Salama, A.M. (2020), “Coronavirus questions that will not go away: interrogating urban and socio-spatial implications of COVID-19 measures”, Emerald Open Research, Vol. 2, p. 14, doi: 10.35241/emeraldopenres.13561.1.

Saunders, P. and Williams, P. (1988), “The constitution of the home: towards a research agenda”,Housing Studies, Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 81-93.

Schellenberg, G. and Fonberg, J. (2020), “Housing characteristics and staying at home during theCOVID-19 pandemic”, available at: https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/45-28-0001/2020001/article/00009-eng.htm.

Sen-Crowe, B., McKenney, M. and Elkbuli, A. (2020), “Social distancing during the COVID-19pandemic: staying home save lives”, American Journal of Emergency Medicine, Vol. 38 No. 7,pp. 1519-1520, doi: 10.1016/j.ajem.2020.03.063.

Setiati, S. and Azwar, M.K. (2020), “COVID-19 and Indonesia”, Acta Medica Indonesiana, Vol. 52,pp. 84-89.

Shwartz, A., Turb�e, A., Simon, L. and Julliard, R. (2014), “Enhancing urban biodiversity and itsinfluence on city-dwellers: an experiment”, Biological Conservation, Vol. 171, pp. 82-90, doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2014.01.009.

Sofo, A. and Sofo, A. (2020), “Correction to: converting home spaces into food gardens at the time ofcovid-19 quarantine: all the benefits of plants in this difficult and unprecedented period”,Human Ecology, Vol. 48, No. 2, pp. 131-139, doi: 10.1007/s10745-020-00147-3.

Tan, R.Y.D. (1967), “The domestic architecture of South Bali”, Bijdragen Tot de Taal-, Land-EnVolkenkunde/Journal of the Humanities and Social Sciences of Southeast Asia, Vol. 123 No. 4,pp. 442-475.

Vasey, D. (1981), Agricultural Systems in Papua New Guinea: Adapting to the Humid Tropics. AHistory of Agriculture in Papua New Guinea: A Time to Plant and a Time to Uproot, Institute ofPapua New Guinea Studies, Port Moresby.

Vasey, D.E. (1982), “Management of food gardens in the national capital District”, Science in NewGuinea, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 141-166.

Vasey, D.E. (1985), “Household gardens and their niche in Port Moresby, Papua New Guinea”, Foodand Nutrition Bulletin, Vol. 7 No. 3, pp. 37-43, doi: 10.1177/156482658500700312.

Veness, A.R. (1993), “Neither homed nor homeless: contested definitions and the personal worlds ofthe poor”, Political Geography, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 319-340.

Vickers, A. (2013), Bali: A Paradise Created, Tuttle Publishing, North Clarendon.

Vitus, K. (2010), “Waiting time: the de-subjectification of children in Danish asylum centres”,Childhood, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 26-42, doi: 10.1177/0907568209351549.

Wainwright, O. (2020), “Smart lifts, lonely workers, no towers or tourists: architecture aftercoronavirus”, The Guardian, 13 April.

Walker, P., Whittaker, C., Watson, O., Baguelin, M., Ainslie, K., Bhatia, S., Bhatt, S., Boonyasiri, A.,Boyd, O. and Cattarino, L. (2020), Report 12: The Global Impact of COVID-19 and Strategies forMitigation and Suppression, Imperial College, London.

White, A. (2012), “‘Every wednesday I Am happy’: childhoods in an Irish asylum centre”, Population,Space and Place, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 314-326, doi: 10.1002/psp.659.

Learning fromthe traditionalBalinese house

77

White, N.R. and White, P.B. (2007), “Home and away. Tourists in a connected world”, Annals ofTourism Research, Vol. 34 No. 1, pp. 88-104, doi: 10.1016/j.annals.2006.07.001.

Wikstrom, T. (1995), “The home and housing modernization”, in The Home: Words, Interpretations,Meanings and Environments, Avebury, London, pp. 267-282.

World Health Organization (2020), “Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) situation dashboard”, availableat: https://covid19.who.int/.

Zhou, F., Yu, T., Du, R., Fan, G., Liu, Y., Liu, Z., Xiang, J., Wang, Y., Song, B., Gu, X., Guan, L., Wei, Y.,Li, H., Wu, X., Xu, J., Tu, S., Zhang, Y., Chen, H. and Cao, B. (2020), “Clinical course and riskfactors for mortality of adult inpatients with COVID-19 in Wuhan, China: a retrospective cohortstudy”, The Lancet, Vol. 395 No. 10229, pp. 1054-1062, doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30566-3.

About the authorMr. I Dewa Gede Agung Diasana Putra has 20 years of experience as an architectural lecturer at theSchool of Architecture, Udayana University. He holds a PhD degree from Deakin University, Australia.His PhD thesis on the transformation of the Traditional Balinese House provided a new culturalframework for the rethinking of the Balinese architecture and its transformation into new environmentalconditions. He teaches and researches some architectural topics, and his most contribution to educationis how architecture mediates people’s identity, traditions and culture. His works focus on strategies thatuphold human dignity and cultural identity through architecture. These experiences have influenced hisapproach to architecture, architectural education and science. I Dewa Gede Agung Diasana Putra can becontacted at: diasanaputra@unud.ac.id

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htmOr contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com

ARCH15,1

78